JUDGMENT : 1. The instant application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the petitioner, Pande Ratneshwari Prasad has been pressed. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the CBI. 3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.RC0932014S0010 (dated 28.07.2014) of CBI, EOW, Ranchi, initially registered under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on the basis of one complaint filed by Shri Neeraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi, are as follows:- (a) The informant since was posted as Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City, Distt : Bokaro, duly authorized by the competent authority of the Bank to lodge the instant F.I.R.; (b) It has been alleged that the State Bank of India has given loan to Shirdi Sai Technopacks Pvt. Ltd., located at Demotand, Hazaribagh, District : Hazaribagh; (c) It is alleged that the said unit was promoted by Sri Vivek Pratap Singh, resident of Hazaribagh along with Sri Birendra Kumar, resident of Suresh Colony, Hazaribagh, and its banking relationship with State Bank of India started at Commercial Branch, Bokaro (SME Bokaro). (d) It is alleged that the loan was sanctioned to the above-mentioned unit on 22.08.2009, but subsequently was declared N.P.A. on 28.11.2011 as there was no recovery in the loan account to the tune of Rs.4.89 Crores plus accrued interest calculated till July, 2013, and as such, the matter was transferred to Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Patna, for hard recovery measures; (e) It is further alleged that a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, was issued on 27.12.2011 and further a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act was issued on 09.08.2012 and the same was challenged by the aforesaid Company before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, in S.A. No.93 of 2012; (f) Due to intervention of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, the above-noted case could not proceed, but in the meantime, the NPA Resolution Agent, M/s Vision, had taken possession of the land and properties of the unit which were mortgaged to the State Bank of India. M/s Vision advised vide its Letter No.VFBS/ 38/2012-13 dated 07.03.2013 that properties of M/s Shirdi Sai Technopacks Pvt. Ltd., Located at Demotand, Hazaribagh, mortgaged to the Bank vide Sale Deed Nos.6745, 6775, and 6774 dated 20.06.2009 were found to be fake property. (g) It is alleged that further Legal opinion dated 05.10.2013 was taken by another Advocate, Sri Rajendra Kumar Chopra and according to his opinion, the mortgagor, Sri Vivek Pratap Singh neither has possession nor ownership. It is further alleged that the valuation report of the above mentioned property, a the time of original sanction was given by Sri Dinesh Chand, resident of 433, A.P. Colony, Gaya and the legal opinion for the same was given by Sri Tarkeshwar Rana, Resident of PTC Ground, Hazaribagh. (h) It is further alleged that during investigation, the investigating official of the Bank has pointed out certain doubts on the integrity of the above Panel Advocates including the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the instant FIR has been lodged under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Counsel for the petitioner while pressing bail application, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner being Advocate has given legal opinion over Title Investigation Report (TIR) on the printed form, but virtually has to sign on dotted line and there is no allegation of any quid pro quo and there is nothing to suggest that he has created forged documents. 5. It was submitted that the petitioner has given the opinion in the prescribed format supplied by the Bank and so he has signed on the dotted line and as such, he cannot be alleged that he is conspirator. 6. It was also submitted that during course of the investigation, he was never arrested and whenever I.O. directed to appear, he appeared and cooperated with the investigation and statement was recorded and after completion of the investigation, the CBI has submitted final form on 30.09.2015 under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, & 471 of the IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and Sri B. K. Tiwari, learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ranchi, on 17.05.2016 has taken cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid Sections of the IPC and P.C. Act. 7. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI appeared in this case and he has filed counter-affidavit. In the Counter-affidavit and also on the basis of the materials collected by the I.O. during course of investigation which reveals that the petitioner has given ‘Title Investigation Report’ in four sale deeds, namely, Sale Deed No.1400 dated 11.03.2006, stand in the name of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh, Sale Deed No.6745 dated 26.06.2009 stand in the name of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh Sale Deed No.6774 dated 26.06.2009 stand in the name of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh and Sale Deed No.6775 stand in the name of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh. He submitted Title Investigation Reports (TIR) in sale deeds being 6745, 6774, 6775 on 29.07.2009 jointly in which he opined that Shri Vivek Pratap Singh has an absolute, clear and marketable title over the properties and valid mortgage can be created, but during course of investigation, it transpires that Sale Deed No.1400 dated 11.03.2006 stands in the name of Shri Vivek Pratap Singh and remaining three sale deeds nos.6745 dated 26.06.2009, 6774 dated 26.06.2009 and Sale Deed No.6775 dated 26.06.2009, all are belonging to the State of Jharkhand and mutation orders as well as rent receipts are found to be forged and fabricated. 8. It was submitted that four other cases have been instituted against the petitioner as the petitioner submitted Title Investigation Report (TIR) on the basis of which loan was sanctioned by the Bank to one Shri Vivek Pratap Singh and as such, the petitioner does not deserve to be admitted on anticipatory bail. 9. Learned standing counsel for the CBI while relying on the aforesaid paragraphs, submits that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. 10. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the CBI and in view of the evidence collected against the petitioner during course of investigation, it reveals that final form has been submitted and the petitioner has also been made accused in four other cases i.e. (1) RC 8(S)/2014-EOW-R, (2) RC 9(S)/2014-EOW-R, (3) RC 11(S)/2014-EOW-R & (4) RC 12(S)/2014-EOW-R appertaining to the same nature of work, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Bail Application rejected